From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: crossd@gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:58:12 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] X, Suntools, and the like In-Reply-To: <7951FBB1-CCF2-4EA6-85DC-3A1D707B5D85@orthanc.ca> References: <4227EA32-12C2-46D1-B683-88812D1E5168@tfeb.org> <3B3776C9-1B22-4143-A4F5-0BEA13C79505@tfeb.org> <20170315164006.GC26286@wopr> <20170316230455.GA21805@naleco.com> <44029610-41EA-404A-AF14-F02A6EAC6143@orthanc.ca> <1BF96B93-740B-4CE5-8B66-CB5B4504B8AD@tfeb.org> <20170317201742.GB21805@naleco.com> <001201d29f5d$5e23dff0$1a6b9fd0$@ronnatalie.com> <836C637F-A0B1-442D-996A-78D538E332B1@orthanc.ca> <7951FBB1-CCF2-4EA6-85DC-3A1D707B5D85@orthanc.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Dan Cross wrote: > > While they tend not to use the bitmapped graphical icons of other > systems, I argue that limiting the definition of desktops to being > characterized by icons representing objects such as files and applications > while being present on the screen seems like an implementation detail and > unnecessarily limiting. > > But I didn't say a desktop requires iconic representations of objects. I > don't think the early Oberon implementations had them (but there are >20 > years of memory loss between then and now). > Sorry; I thought that's what you were saying but I was wrong. But I confess confusion. For instance, you mention Oberon here as not having graphical icons but then in the next sentence two sentences it didn't meet your definition of what a desktop is. So that sort of seems like a non sequitur. What, then, is you definition? (And I'm not asking that to be combative; I'm truly interested.) Was Oberon a desktop? Not to my mind. It was a bitmapped interface vs a > text-cell-based interface to a cooperating group of programs. Conceptually > I don't see any difference between Oberon and screen(1) in that regard. > Would you consider screen a 'desktop'? And likewise, Oberon? I'm not > asking this rhetorically. These concepts have fuzzy definitions for a lot > of people, and I'm curious to see how they map out. > I would definitely call Oberon's graphical interface a desktop (btw, the graphical sorting demo was *cool*). But I'm clearly using a different definition than you are. - Dan C. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: